Troubled Families March 2012-3

535 views

Published on

In December 2010 the Prime Minister set out that he wanted troubled families’ lives to be turned around by the end of this Parliament.

The priority was to help families who were stuck with many problems, often responsible for causing problems, and also costing society a large amount of money in terms of services. The report draws upon interviews with families carried out in May and June 2012 by Louise Casey. Six local authorities in England assisted with providing access to families.

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
535
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Troubled Families March 2012-3

  1. 1. A Community Budget forSupporting Leicestershire’sTroubled FamiliesStrategic Outline Case Key Messages
  2. 2. Leicestershire’s Ambition for Our Troubled Families1. Significantly improving outcomes for families and their children2. Reducing the current costs of public services “Our heart tells us we can’t just stand by… Our head tells us we can’t afford to keep footing the monumental bills for social failure. we have got to take action to turn troubled families around” David Cameron, 15th December 2011 2
  3. 3. National Update 3
  4. 4. Prevalence of Troubled Families in Leicestershire 4
  5. 5. 5
  6. 6. 6
  7. 7. 7
  8. 8. Troubled Families Profile: 1300 49% of households have some 64% have educational risks form of mental health problem truancy, >15%, SEN, exclusions,Rises to 81% with Alcohol & Drug misuse class behaviour, PRU 1 in 2 families involved in 57% solely or heavily reliant upon crime / ASB state benefits 75% actually in receipt of benefits 96% have at least one family 36% of families have a physical dysfunction riskDV, Behaviour, Poor Parenting, Safeguarding, health condition unstable relationships etc 8
  9. 9. Troubled Families make up…77% of Domestic Violence 70% of families assessed by Casework children’s social care Sourced from pilot work Summer 2010 are either TF or Threshold (Initial or Core) 79% of Youth Offending 96% of CAF Cases TF (69% of casework) Service Casework Threshold (27% of casework) 48% of Attendance 100% of Probation CaseworkImprovement Service cases where probationer is a parent 9
  10. 10. District prevalence of TF families across domains (1300) Families with Criminal Justice Issues Families with Employment Issues Families with Education Issues Families with Family Functioning Issues Families with Mental Health Issues Families with Physical Health Isssues450400350300250200150100 50 80 431 66 277 127 235 68 0 Blaby Charnwood Harborough Hinckley & Melton North West Oadby & 10 Bosworth Leicestershire Wigston
  11. 11. Services that know families with crime/ASB issues Common Assessment Framework Youth Offender Service Probation Data District Council Childrens Centre Family Intervention Project Frameworki Childrens Social Care350300250200150100 50 0 Blaby Charnwood Harborough Hinckley & Melton North West Oadby & Bosworth Leicestershire Wigston 11
  12. 12. What we learned from the Insight Phase… Common issues for Families Confusing landscape of public  Difficulties maintaining relationships services (incl. family, friends, peers, isolation Isolation in their communities & social marginalisation) Public services ‘do to them’  Lack of resilience (incl. capability, Lack of or limited choice/control capacity, confidence & inability to cope) Public services in then out  Poor/overcrowded housing (incl. Adverse effect on aspirations/ homelessness) perception of social mobility  High risk behaviours (incl. substance Domestic violence misuse) Poor parenting  Poverty (incl. debt & unemployment)  Health (incl. mental health & disability)  Crime (offending and experience of)  Lack of education/ attainment 12
  13. 13. Reoccurring Themes from Evidence Base,Current Literature and National Policy on What works: Early intervention  Tackling worklessness Building resilience  Tackling poor health Stability, continuity and  Tackling poverty transitions  Involving communities and Effective parenting and building social capital supporting families  Building capabilities, resilience Tackling educational and skills development performance 13
  14. 14. Common Perspectives from Families“Many families were resigned to their situations, and did not appear to takeresponsibility for trying to improve them. One family had no sense of personalresponsibility at all, and another’s primary responsibility was to get services outof their lives and would do and say things with that in mind”.“Families saw limited value in just being told or taught how to do something.They all wanted much more practical and hands on support, and wantedsomeone to actually come in and actually show them how to do things. Theyall appeared perfectly happy for someone to practically work with theirchildren on behalf or in front of them”.“There is a real divergence between families’ own perceptions of themselvesand how they perceive that professionals view them. Families use words suchas caring, tight, coming together to sort their problems out etc. They say thatprofessionals would see them as hectic, needy, chaotic, trouble etc. Familiescan’t see any recognition from many professionals of their strengths and justfeel they are viewed in the negative”. 14
  15. 15. Leicestershire’s Proposed Troubled Family Model
  16. 16. Approved Family Model Approved Family Model Specialist -> <- Services ft Ac hi lS t Fa ra m tu ily ul -> C <- Co-located locality service: •Permanent core team members inc Family Worker Improved outcomes •P/t Co-opted team Increased resilience, strengths & members independence •Personalised family Family Family budgets Role: Universal Targeted Whole family approach Services •Delivers direct support Services •Co-ordinates other services <-C > ily- •Outreach in home/community u ltu •Assertive intensive support m ra l Sh •Small caseloads t Fa i ft -> <- Ac 16
  17. 17. Review of National Family Intervention Project (FIP) Released Dec 15th with Troubled Family Announcement  FIP 4 year Programme  Independent Study by NAT CEN  8.8k families Profile & Risk factors at Referral (Multiple factors)  Family functioning - 81% families  Poor parenting – 67%  Relationship/family breakdown – 32%  Domestic violence – 30%  Child protection – 30%  Crime/ASB – 39% /79%  Child Behavioural problems – 60%  Health Problems – 49%  Mental health – 39%  Physical health – 10%  Not in Employment, Education & Training (over 18s) – 65% 17
  18. 18. NAT CEN FIP RESEARCH: Outcomes for families exiting FIPOutcome Improvements Recorded: Families involved in ASB  A Reduction of 58% to 34% Families involved in Crime  A Reduction of 41% to 20% Children with behavioural /truancy problems  A Reduction of 53% to 28% Risks from poor family functioning (DV, family breakdown, child protection)  A Reduction of 47% to 16% Child protection plans  A Reduction of 34% to 18% Health risks including mental, physical health and substance misuse problems  A Reduction of 34% In worklessness (ETE) 18  A Reduction of 14% to 58%
  19. 19. Partners have agreed the twin aims ofimproving outcomes for the families andtheir children and reducing the cost to thepublic sector of supporting the familiesthrough system change. 19 © 2011 Deloitte MCS Limited. Private and confidential.

×